http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=15811514 Comments On: Savage Love by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Thu, 23 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Thu, 23 May 2013 06:00:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Crabbey]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:59:45 -0800 The Stranger Posted by tj777]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 20:54:25 -0800 The Stranger I boiled it down to this - do what will make you happy within your budget. If you have guests, you must be hospitible to them, (yes, that means food and drink, including alcohol they don't have to buy) If you want the day to be all about you - elope. If you want to get hitched in a remote locale (I did) don't expect people to traipse along. I remember the dilemma of my best friend (for whom I was best man). He and his bride lived in Itlay, were both from the West Coast, and attended school on the East Coast. They finally split the difference and had the wedding on the East Coast and paid for it themselves. If folks could not attend (and only one Italian relative was able to make it), that was fine with them. The then travelled to the West Coast to have a party for those who could not come out, then back to italy for another party for those folks. They had the wedding they wanted and nobody felt left out. Sincerity is most important. (they are still married 21 years later)
Posted by David Kidd]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 08:37:44 -0800 The Stranger Pillsbury Doughboy!!
I guess my body is trying to tell me that I can't be a "Blue Box Kid" anymore,
and be a grown-up when it comes to wining and dining.

I'm hoping that I can graduate back to a little dark chocolate and local berries (without added sugar, of course!) by my next birthday.
I'll never have a bikini figure again, but.......
Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:22:17 -0800 The Stranger Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:23:04 -0800 The Stranger "JOKES ON YOU SUCKERS, I HAVE VIAGARA! AND RAPE!"


Posted by mydriasis]]> Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:18:54 -0800 The Stranger Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:41:20 -0800 The Stranger
Adults (18–49) of all sexual orientations are needed for an important study on the relationship between sexual orientation, rejection, and the attachment system. Go to surveymonkey.com/s/attachmentandalienati…

Thanks for the plug.
Posted by VelhoSorriso]]> Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:02:01 -0800 The Stranger
Perish is the right word. I can only assume Myd was hoping for my imminent demise.

I have never wished ill for any of my fellow correspondents.

I rule out that she was possibly predicting some age-related sexual dysfunction. After all, in this age of Viagra, even Myd cannot be so stupid as to not recognize that I still have decades of stuffing boners in female orifices ahead.


Posted by Hunter78]]> Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:31:05 -0800 The Stranger
paz y gracias.

Jamie


Posted by Rev Jamie]]> Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:26:17 -0800 The Stranger
Can you be specific about what actual characteristics you are refering to? I certainly don't see any of the choices I have made regarding my marriage to be wrong, nor do I see any "wrong" in the relationships of the other gay married people I know.

I'm not sure what it is you are seeing that seems to be the wrong choice for embracing.

What my partner and I take, particularly from the model of my parents' marriage, are the love, commitment, and support they exibited as the foundation of their marriage.
Posted by Fortunate]]> Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:29:35 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Starmartyr]]> Tue, 29 Jan 2013 08:42:56 -0800 The Stranger Posted by EricaP]]> Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:59:26 -0800 The Stranger Posted by AFinch]]> Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:29:34 -0800 The Stranger Posted by jeffy]]> Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:43:23 -0800 The Stranger What IS it about that thievin' little smooth-talking J.D.?
Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:24:44 -0800 The Stranger
Geez--I have more energy at 48 than I did at 28!
Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:22:18 -0800 The Stranger Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:18:50 -0800 The Stranger Posted by EricaP]]> Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:05:19 -0800 The Stranger

Posted by Hunter78]]> Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:03:52 -0800 The Stranger Posted by anonymous1]]> Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:54:03 -0800 The Stranger
While I personally favour selective assimilation, I suspect that the case could be made that the characteristics (I refuse to call them "qualities") formerly reserved for/associated with straight married couples which are being most heartily embraced by same-sex married couples are all the wrong ones. It's getting to be practically an orientation on its own. Personally, if a couple would rather present as M rather than L, G, B or anything else, I have no desire to interfere with their choice, but, for instance, if we lose the concept of the Chosen Family - one of our greatest victories, and already it's starting to crack - the straights will have gotten the better end of the deal out of that bride (or groom) price. If they herd enough of us into kyriarchal, insular, exclusionary little families just like their own, they may be able to crush us yet.

At least the case can be made to that effect. I remain unconvinced, and, as almost always, find it more problematic to attempt to restrict individual choice than to cope with the fallout from those choices.
Posted by vennominon]]> Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:26:36 -0800 The Stranger
I'm assuming you mean 'patriarchal"? rather than "patrilocal". Being a guy married to a guy there is nothing patriarchal about my marriage. What's more, gay people getting married, the formation of legally recognized marriage unions between people of the same gender, is simply another blow against patriarchy. The more gay people, and for that matter straight people who manage to wed and not fall into patriarchal roles, marry and demonstrate what a non-patriarchal marriage can be the weaker patriarchy becomes.

In fact I have no doubt that on some subtle level that is what the anti equality crowd fears.

"Why do we gays have to buy into this hetrosexulization of our lives?"

Again, marriage doesn't have to adhere to some heterosexual model. There is nothing heterosexual about my marriage. The structure of my relationship before and after my wedding is indistinguishable. What, somehow taking a marriage vow suddenly made my homosexual relationship instantly heterosexualized even though there was no discernible difference in it's structure and arrangement?

Sorry, but those arguments make about as much sense as the homophobic anti marriage arguments.

"Wasn't the 60's free love, shacking up, a revolt against this?"

I keep hearing people talk about 60's free love as if it were some great successful experiment that we should emulate for all times. But really, having had my childhood in the 70's in the aftermath of the 60's free love experiment my recollections, even if I didn't fully understand what I was seeing at the time, are not pretty.

That aftermath seemed like a rather dismal and depressing time.

Some good things came out of the 60's free love experiment. But let's not fool ourselves into believing that it was one, big, happy experience for everyone that we should try to stick with. It was still rife with sexism, and people using each other, and other negative aspects as well.

But the idea of sexual liberation is rooted in the idea that people should be free to pursue the relationships and sexual expression that they feel is right for them.

Trying to push, shame, or otherwise get people who aren't comfortable with it to engage in relationships or sexual expression that they don't want to is a blow against sexual liberation, regardless if that manifests as denial of participation in the institutions of relationships generally acknowledged in our society, or pressure to engage in what is generally considered more progressive forms of relationships such as open relationships, ploy relationships, or some form of 60's "free love".

Freedom means the freedom to choose. Marriage equality isn't about forcing gay people to marry. It's about gay people having access to all the options available straight people so we are free to make our own choices.
Posted by Fortunate]]> Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:27:52 -0800 The Stranger
We don't like to think about the alcoholic smoker who lives to be ninety-five and dies of natural causes while the tofu-scarfing vegan who adheres to an austere asceticism to intense only room-temperature water is permissible keels over from a massive MI due to atherosclerosis at 45 after finishing a pre-dawn run and yoga, but it happens more often than you'd think.

FWIW, coming from a long line of "American" anglos (like four centuries), I can promise you that while these things may not be spoken of, they are most certainly considered.

@75 - see venganza.org for a wonderful example of ordination qualifications. A friend's father will be conducting mine as a civil ceremony, using a "service" we write ourselves.
Posted by AFinch]]> Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:42:26 -0800 The Stranger
I'm also aware that considering family genetics is less popular among Americans, as it seems to go against the individualistic notion that people should not be painted with the same stroke as their family members. It's much more accepted among, say, Asian cultures.
Posted by I Hate Screen Names]]> Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:59:24 -0800 The Stranger